A key finding of OJJDP's Study Group on Serious
and Violent Juvenile Offenders—that most chronic
juvenile offenders begin their delinquency careers
before age 12 and some as early as age 10 1 —led
OJJDP in 1998 to establish its Study Group on
Very Young Offenders (the Study Group). The
Study Group assembled a distinguished panel of
15 researchers to examine collaboratively what is
known about the prevalence and frequency of very
young offending (i.e., offending by children younger
than age 13). The Study Group focused specifically
on determining whether young offending is predictive
of future delinquent or criminal careers, how
juveniles are handled by various systems, and what
the best methods are for preventing very young offending
and the persistence of offending. The Study
Group's findings are complete, and OJJDP will
issue a Bulletin on the project in late 2001.

Young offending is serious business. The most
recent available national data show that in 1999,
police arrested about one-quarter of a million
(230,800) youth age 12 and younger. Such very
young offenders ("child delinquents") represented
about 9 percent of the total number of juvenile
arrestees (those up to age 18 in 1999). Although most of these child delinquents were boys, nearly
one in four was a girl. These numbers may underestimate
the number of child delinquents because
in many jurisdictions it is unusual for delinquents
under age 12 to be arrested or referred to juvenile
court.

In 1997, 2 offenders age 12 and younger made up
about 16 percent of those referred to juvenile court.
Compared with later onset offenders, child delinquents
commit certain types of serious offenses at
relatively high rates. For example, they account for
1 in 3 juvenile arrests for arson, 1 in 5 juvenile arrests
for sex offenses and vandalism, and 1 in 12
juvenile arrests for violent crime. Child delinquents
are also more likely than later onset offenders to
engage in minor theft and commit status offenses
such as truancy, running away from home, and
curfew and liquor law violations.

No evidence of a new and more serious "breed"
of child delinquent and young murderer exists.
Although statistics relating to the number of child
delinquents are sobering, they do not represent a
drastic shift in the trend of juvenile offending. The
prevalence of child delinquents does not appear to
have increased over the past two decades. For example,
the number of recorded arrests of juveniles
increased 35 percent between 1988 and 1997, but
the number of child delinquents increased by only
6 percent during that time. In addition, examination of self-reported delinquency data for the past 20
years indicates no increase in delinquency by young
offenders in the United States. Moreover, between
1980 and 1997, the number of murders committed
by offenders age 12 or younger remained fairly
constant, averaging about 30 per year. Increased
media coverage and public awareness of very young
offenders, however, may affect the public's view of
child delinquents.

It is short-sighted for communities to ignore
delinquent acts and problem behaviors of child
delinquents in the hope that they will "grow out
of them." Child delinquency is a predictor of serious,
violent, and chronic offending. Research findings
uniformly show that the risk of subsequent
violence, serious offenses, and chronic offending is
two to three times higher for child delinquents than
for later onset offenders. Child delinquents also tend
to have longer delinquency careers than later onset
delinquents. In addition, child delinquents are more
likely than later onset juvenile offenders to become
gang members and/or engage in substance abuse.

Incarceration in a detention center or correctional
facility is inappropriate for child delinquents in
most cases. No evidence shows that incarcerating
serious child delinquents substantially reduces recidivism
or prevents careers of serious and violent
offending. In fact, correctional placement of child
delinquents may lead to their exposure to and
victimization by older, serious delinquent offenders
and increase the child delinquents' likelihood of
becoming serious and chronic offenders.

Researchers cannot definitively predict which preschoolers
will become child delinquents and serious
and violent juvenile offenders, but there are warning
signs. A certain level of disruptive behavior is common
during the preschool years, especially at ages 2 and 3,
when many children of both sexes show high levels of
aggression and noncompliance. Although the majority
of early-onset delinquents have a history of aggressive,
inattentive, or sensation-seeking behavior in the preschool years, the reverse is not true: The majority of aggressive, inattentive, or attention-seeking preschoolers
do not go on to become child delinquents.
Researchers nonetheless have identified the following
important warning signs of later problems:

Disruptive behavior that is either more frequent
or more severe than that of other children the
same age.

Disruptive behavior, such as temper tantrums
and aggression, that persists beyond ages 2 to 3.
For many very young offenders, disruptive behavior
becomes apparent during the preschool
and certainly the elementary years.

Additional early warning signs for the development
of delinquency at a young age include:

Physical fighting.

Cruelty to people or animals.

Covert acts such as frequent lying, theft, and fire
setting.

Inability to get along with others.

Low school motivation during elementary school.

Substance use (without parental permission).

Repeated victimization (e.g., child abuse
or peer bullying).

Definition of Child Delinquency

Child delinquency includes offending between the ages of 7 and 12.
The Study Group on Very Young Offenders concentrated on three categories
of children:

Serious child delinquents: Children between the ages
of 7 and 12 who have committed one or more of the following acts:
homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, rape, or serious arson.

Nondelinquent children: Children up to and including
age 12 who engage in persistent disruptive behavior but do not
commit delinquent acts.

Steps can be taken to prevent child delinquency
and its escalation to chronic criminal behavior.
The best way to prevent any type of delinquency
(including child delinquency) is to focus on risk and
protective factors. Risk factors for child delinquency,
like those for later onset juvenile offending, exist in
the individual child, the family, the peer group, and
the school. They probably also exist in the neighborhood
in which the child lives. For very young
offenders, the most important risk factors are likely
individual (e.g., birth complications, hyperactivity,
and impulsivity) or family related (e.g., parental substance
abuse and poor childrearing practices). Protective
factors—that is, those that can buffer or offset
the impact of risk factors—include prosocial behavior
during the preschool years and strong cognitive performance.
Ultimately, children with many risk factors
and few protective factors are at highest risk of becoming
serious, violent, and chronic offenders.

Communities should emphasize primary prevention
and early intervention. Several primary prevention
programs reviewed by the Study Group are
geared to conflict resolution and violence prevention
and focus on enhancing children's problem-solving
and interaction skills. Programs that teach children
about the causes and the destructive consequences
of violence (e.g., the Second Step and the Responding
in Peaceful and Positive Ways curriculums) have
been shown to reduce aggressive behavior significantly.
Several other effective programs focus on
reducing early persistent disruptive behavior among
children. Some programs (e.g., Parent Management
Training, Functional Family Therapy, and Multisystemic
Therapy) have been shown to reduce the
risk of later, more serious offending.

No single agency can reduce child delinquency;
rather, partnerships between agencies are likely
to be more productive and efficient. Child delinquents
often have co-occurring problems, such as
early substance abuse, depression, rejection by
peers, academic underachievement, and truancy.
Because child delinquents frequently have multiple
problems at a young age, they tend to require services from several agencies. Ideally, programs for
serious child delinquents should incorporate immediate
screening and assessment to identify children's
programmatic needs. Interventions for persistently
disruptive children and child delinquents should:

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P. 1997. Never Too
Early, Never Too Late: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions
for Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. Final
Report of the Study Group on Serious and Violent
Juvenile Offenders (grant number 95–JD–FX–
0018). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from
the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, 800–638–8736.

Since 1986, OJJDP has sponsored three longitudinal
studies—collectively referred to as the Program
of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency—designed to improve understanding of
serious delinquency, violence, and drug use by examining
how individual juveniles develop within the context
of family, school, peers, and community. Samples of
inner-city youth from three cities (Denver, CO; Pittsburgh,
PA; and Rochester, NY) were selected. The
studies involved repeated contacts with the same juveniles,
including face-to-face private interviews every
6 to 12 months for a substantial portion of their developmental
years. On average, the studies have retained
90 percent of the juveniles in the sample populations.

Researchers at the three sites used the same core
measures to examine:

Delinquent behavior.

Drug use.

Involvement in the juvenile justice system.

Community characteristics.

Family experiences.

Peer relationships.

Education experiences.

Attitudes and values.

Demographic characteristics.

Many of this research program's initial findings
were reported in OJJDP's Report OJJDP Research:
Making a Difference for Juveniles, published in August
1999 (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 1999). The current Report focuses on
additional research findings and policy implications.

The Causes and Correlates Studies

A Longitudinal Multidisciplinary Study of
Developmental Patterns (Denver Youth Survey),
directed by David Huizinga, Ph.D., at the
University of Colorado.

Progressions in Antisocial and Delinquent Child
Behavior (Pittsburgh Youth Study), directed by
Rolf Loeber, Ph.D., at the University of
Pittsburgh.

A Panel Study of a Reciprocal Causal Model of
Delinquency (Rochester Youth Development
Study), directed by Terence P. Thornberry,
Ph.D., at The Research Foundation, University
at Albany, State University of New York.

Additional information on these studies appears
on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency
Web site: www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ccd/.

Multiple family transitions are a risk factor for
delinquency. Youth in the studies' urban samples
experienced a substantial number of transitions during
adolescence.3 Family instability was most pronounced
in Rochester, where about two-thirds of
the sample experienced at least one transition and
nearly one-half experienced two or more transitions
during a 4-year period. Almost one-half (49 percent)
of the Denver youth and almost one-third (30 percent)
of the Pittsburgh youth experienced one or
more family transitions during that time. Researchers
found a consistent relationship between the
number of transitions a youth experienced and his
or her level of delinquency and drug use.

Adolescent males' early involvement in drug use
and delinquency is highly correlated with teen
fatherhood. In Rochester, 70 percent of the high-frequency
drug users in the sample became teen
fathers (compared with 24 percent of nonusers or
low-frequency users). Similarly, nearly one-half of
high-rate delinquents 4 later became teen fathers
(compared with 23 percent of nondelinquents or
low-rate delinquents). In Rochester, researchers
also found that teen fatherhood was generally linked
to a boy's involvement in deviant behavior such as
sexual intercourse before age 16, gang membership,
chronic violent behavior, and chronic drug use.
Even controlling for other variables, researchers found that a number of these problem behaviors
substantially increased a boy's likelihood of becoming
a teen father. Chronic drug use alone more than
doubled the probability of teen fatherhood.

In the Pittsburgh sample, early delinquency—but
not early drug use—was a significant risk factor for
teenage fatherhood. The Pittsburgh study found
several other significant risk factors for teen fatherhood,
including being raised in a family on welfare
and being exposed to drugs (e.g., being offered
drugs or witnessing a drug deal).

Teen fatherhood does not make young males more
responsible and law-abiding. Some policymakers
and researchers hypothesize that fatherhood might
encourage young males to become more responsible
and assume the tasks of helping to establish and
support a family. Researchers, however, have found
that teen fatherhood is associated with a significant
increase in delinquent behavior. In the same year
that the young men in the Pittsburgh study reported
becoming fathers, they were 7.5 times more likely
than nonfathers to commit serious delinquent acts.
In the year after the boys became fathers, their risk
of committing serious delinquent acts remained
relatively high (4.2 times higher than that of non-fathers).
Overall, young fathers in the Pittsburgh
sample appeared considerably worse off than non-fathers.
They were more likely to have had a court
petition alleging delinquency, to drink alcohol frequently,
to be involved in drug dealing, and to have
dropped out of school. What is perhaps most important,
the study indicates that it is a mistake to assume
that having a child will force young fathers to
turn away from delinquency, drug use, and other
negative behavior. In fact, without support, the
added pressure of this responsibility might result
in drinking or drug use, poor school performance,
and further isolation from prosocial peers.

Programs that target at-risk juveniles need to include
their families. Previous research on risk and
protective factors identified a link between family
instability and a child's risk of delinquent behavior.
Recent findings of the Causes and Correlates research
confirm this link. In particular, research shows
that family disruption (whether through divorce, separation, illness, work-related mobility, or imprisonment)
greatly affects a child's risk of juvenile delinquency.
Prevention and intervention programs for
juvenile delinquents, therefore, need to closely examine
the juveniles' family circumstances. Family
violence, physical and mental health problems, poverty,
unemployment, and the criminal activity of a
child's parents can all result in multiple family disruptions.
Any program that hopes to improve a juvenile's
future must include his or her family in the solution.

Teen pregnancy prevention programs should focus
on boys and girls. Historically, teen pregnancy prevention
programs have focused only on teenage girls.
More recently, however, some programs have focused
on teenage boys—both in terms of prevention and
in terms of encouraging fathers' involvement in child-rearing.
Recent findings from the Causes and Correlates
program indicate that focusing on both boys and
girls is extremely important, especially among youth
at risk for delinquency and drug use.

The transfer of juveniles from the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court to the jurisdiction of the adult criminal
court has been part of the juvenile justice system since its inception. The concept of transfer acknowledges that some violent and chronic juvenile offenders are
not amenable to treatment and must, for the purposes
of public safety and accountability, be dealt
with in the criminal justice system. Transfer, however,
was originally only a minor part of the juvenile
court's routine activities and was invoked only
in the most serious cases. In the late 1980s and
early 1990s, as the rate of juvenile violent crime
rose significantly, many policymakers looked for a
new approach. Between 1992 and 1995, 40 States
and the District of Columbia modified their transfer
provisions to make the transfer of jurisdiction
easier and/or broader under certain circumstances.
For example, some States lowered the age of criminal
court jurisdiction for particularly serious offenses,
such as assault with a deadly weapon.
When mandating or allowing for the transfer of jurisdiction, States also considered the number
and type of offenses a juvenile had committed.

Transfer mechanisms range from statutory exclusion
to concurrent jurisdiction to judicial waiver.
Under exclusion statutes, State legislatures exclude
from the juvenile court's jurisdiction certain categories
of juveniles. Such categories are generally defined
by the seriousness of the offense and/or by the
number or type of prior offenses committed by the
offender. Under concurrent jurisdiction, the district
attorney has the option of filing certain types of
cases in juvenile court or in adult criminal court.
Finally, under judicial waiver, the prosecutor (or
defense attorney) asks the juvenile court judge to
transfer or waive the juvenile to adult criminal
court. Each State has adopted one or more of these
mechanisms, generally specifying particular criteria that must be met (e.g., injury to a victim, use of a
firearm or other weapon, or a history of serious
offenses) to transfer a juvenile to criminal court.
(See Three Transfer Mechanisms for more information.)

OJJDP-Funded Research Projects on the Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court

Two projects directed by Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D.,
Columbia School of Public Health,
New York, NY:

Project To Study the Outcome of Juvenile
Transfer to Criminal Court, directed by Howard
N. Snyder, Ph.D., National Center for Juvenile
Justice, National Council of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges, Pittsburgh, PA.

Although they may have different names in different States, the three general types of transfer mechanisms
are judicial waiver, statutory exclusion, and concurrent jurisdiction. Each is described below.

Judicial waiver (juvenile court judge). Under judicial waiver, a hearing occurs in juvenile court, typically in
response to a prosecutor's request that the juvenile court judge waive or forego the juvenile court's jurisdiction
over a matter involving a juvenile and transfer the juvenile to criminal court for trial in the adult
system.

Statutory exclusion (the legislature). In a growing number of States, legislatures have statutorily excluded
certain young offenders from juvenile court jurisdiction based on age and/or offense criteria.
For example, many States have set the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction at 15 or 16. (An estimated
218,000 cases involving youth under age 18 were tried in criminal court in 1996 as a result of
State laws defining the youth as adults solely on the basis of an age criterion.) Many States also exclude
youth charged with certain serious offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction. Typically, these offenses are
capital offenses and other murders and violent offenses. Some States exclude other, additional felony
offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction.

Concurrent jurisdiction (prosecutor). Under this transfer option, State statutes give prosecutors the discretion
to file certain cases in either juvenile or criminal court because original jurisdiction is shared by
both courts. Concurrent jurisdiction provisions, like other transfer mechanisms, are typically limited by age
and offense criteria. Unlike judicial waiver, however, prosecutorial transfer is not subject to judicial review
and is not required to meet due process requirements. Some States have developed guidelines for prosecutors
to follow in "direct filing" cases (i.e., cases involving juveniles that prosecutors file directly in adult
criminal court).

Although the term "transfer" refers to three general mechanisms, only one (judicial waiver) actually involves
the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the adult criminal court. Cases that follow the other two
paths may never pass through the juvenile court system.

OJJDP has funded several studies of local and
State-level transfer provisions. These research efforts
were designed to determine how transfers are
being used presently and have been used in the past
and to examine the effects of recent legislative
changes altering the nature of transfers in specific
States. Two projects funded in 1995 include a multi-State
study conducted by the National Center for
Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) and a multiyear study in
Florida conducted by the Florida Juvenile Justice
Accountability Board (JJAB). In 1997, OJJDP
funded a two-State study conducted by Columbia
University to replicate and expand a previous study
it conducted in the early 1990s.

NCJJ study. Using archival data from the 1980s
and 1990s, NCJJ conducted studies in Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, and Utah. The results of these
studies were published in an OJJDP research Summary,
Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the 1990's:
Lessons Learned From Four Studies (Snyder, Sickmund,
and Poe-Yamagata, 2000). These three States were
selected because they have historically relied on
judicial waiver as their primary transfer mechanism.

The study in South Carolina examined waiver cases
from 1985 through 1994 because, during that time,
the State's only transfer mechanism was judicial
waiver. In 1995, State law changed to include other
transfer mechanisms.

Because Utah also had a stable judicial waiver provision
up until 1995, data from its study cover the
period from 1988 to 1994. The Utah data, however,
track cases that began in juvenile court but also involved
a prosecutor's request for waiver.

The Pennsylvania research included two studies. In
the first, researchers collected State data to compare
the characteristics of juveniles transferred in 1986
with those of juveniles transferred in 1994, a period
during which the State's transfer provisions remained
unchanged. In the late 1980s, juvenile
crime in Pennsylvania began to increase substantially,
and the study examined how the juvenile justice system
dealt with this increase. In the second Pennsylvania
study, data from three counties were used to examine
the effects of State legislation passed in March 1996
that excluded certain juveniles from the jurisdiction of
the juvenile court. Researchers in this second Pennsylvania study examined the cases of juveniles excluded
from juvenile court jurisdiction under this provision
during the final 9 months of 1996.

Florida study. The Florida JJAB began its multiphase study in 1995. The study was designed to examine the changes in transfer that resulted from Floridas
broad reform of juvenile justice in 1994. One phase of
the Florida study used the statewide Client Information System (CIS), which tracks all juvenile offenders
through the juvenile justice system. By comparing the
use of transfer mechanisms in 1993 with their use in
1995, researchers hoped to determine the effect of new,
more lenient transfer provisions put in place in 1994.

Columbia University study. OJJDP is supporting
research at Columbia University that is replicating a
1987 study. The original study compared two urban
counties in New Jersey with two boroughs of New
York City. The jurisdictions in both States were comparable in terms of population, socioeconomic levels,
and urban environments. State transfer provisions in
New Jersey and New York, however, differ substantially. Under New York law, all persons age 16 and
older are considered adults and are thus handled
in the criminal court system. Under New Jersey
law, youth age 18 and older are considered adults.
This difference provided researchers an opportunity
to examine how the difference in the age of criminal
court jurisdiction may have affected the treatment of adolescent offenders. By matching offenders in
the two jurisdictions and tracking their cases, researchers sought to determine whether sanctions
applied in criminal court were harsher and more consistently applied than juvenile court sanctions and whether criminal court sanctions resulted in less
recidivism among offenders than sanctions applied
in juvenile court (hypotheses expounded by proponents of the transfer of juveniles to criminal court).

Concentrating on 16- and 17-year-olds charged with
first-degree robbery, second-degree robbery, or first-degree burglary, Fagan (1995) used archival data to track the process of matching pairs of youth from
each jurisdiction. In the end, Fagan (1995:253)
found that:

Accountability for adolescent offenders in
criminal courts was no greater than in the
juvenile court, and depending on the social
and legal context surrounding the court,
appeared to be weaker. Nor was criminal
court punishment a more effective strategy
for crime control. Quite possibly, more
harm than good resulted from the effort to criminalize adolescent crimes.

The replication study being funded by OJJDP,
which includes three counties in New Jersey and
three boroughs of New York, is designed to expand
and update the original research. It expands the list
of offenses studied to include serious assault, and
researchers are comparing the certainty, quickness,
and severity of sanctions and the recidivism associated with criminal versus juvenile court jurisdiction. Further, researchers conducting the replication
study are providing an indepth examination of the
organizational context of the various jurisdictions to
determine how these contexts affect outcomes. This
ongoing research from Columbia University will be
completed in 2001.

Transfer is generally reserved for the most serious
cases and the most serious juvenile offenders. The
research studies described in the previous section
showed that judges and prosecutors in South Carolina and Utah used similar criteria in determining
which juveniles should be transferred to criminal
court. Although the decisionmaking process in each
State differed significantly, in both States certain
common criteriaincluding a juveniles court history and the seriousness of his or her offensewere
strong predictors of whether the youth would be
transferred. Determinations of the seriousness of
an offense or a juveniles amenability to treatment
changed during the period under consideration. In
Pennsylvania, the number of judicial waivers increased 84 percent between 1986 and 1994an
increase that exceeded the 32-percent rise in juvenile
crime during the same period. Although some of the
increase in waiver derives from the rise in juvenile
crime, the research suggests that the juvenile courts
waived a larger number of juvenile drug offenders
than other offenders. The research also suggests that
Pennsylvania courts began to believe that a greater
proportion of adjudicated delinquents were no
longer amenable to treatment within the juvenile
justice system.

In Pennsylvania, judges and prosecutors generally
agree on which juveniles should be transferred. In
Florida, however, prosecutors and judges viewed
the purpose and impact of reform differently. In
four out of five cases examined in the first Pennsylvania study, the juvenile court supported the request
for waiver, indicating that prosecutors and judges
in that State generally agree about who should be
waived and who should not. It may be that prosecutors are simply able to gauge the cases in which a
judge is likely to grant a waiver request. The study
of exclusions in Pennsylvania indicated that criminal
court judges agree with juvenile court judges about
which cases should be transferred.

The Florida study included a survey of prosecutors
and juvenile court judges in the States judicial districts. The survey was designed to help researchers
understand these players perceptions of the States
statutory changes. Although prosecutors and juvenile court judges were found to generally agree on
the results of the reforms, the survey showed important distinctions. For example, 61 percent of the
prosecutors believed that the most significant
change was the lowering of the direct file age
(from 16 to 14), whereas only 32 percent of the
juvenile court judges regarded this as the most significant change. In addition, 36 percent of prosecutors felt that public safety was the goal of transfers,
and only 8 percent of judges held that view. The
study also showed that 79 percent of prosecutors
viewed direct file as the preferred method of transfer, compared with 36 percent of judges.

Exclusion laws are not necessarily having their
intended effect. Transfer provisions that went into
effect in Florida in 1994 specifically addressed and
made it easier to transfer younger offenders, felons,
and juveniles with significant offense records. Data
from CIS, however, indicate that the reforms had
little effect on the types of youth transferred during the year following the changes. The lack of an immediate impact may mean that prosecutors and
judges have been slow to exercise their new authority. It may also reflect a disconnect between the sentiments of legislators and those of practitioners who
deal directly with juvenile offenders.

The Florida study has several other components,
including a survey of youth who were the subject of
proceedings in the criminal or juvenile court. The
respondents in the juvenile system and those in the
criminal system were matched (according to factors
such as age and offense seriousness) to allow researchers to compare the experiences of similar
juveniles in the two systems. Finally, the study is
exploring the use of blended sanctioning, whereby a juvenile receives both a juvenile and an adult sanction. These last two study elements are continuing,
and results will be reported in late 2001. The project
has completed all data collection activities on these
elements and is currently writing analyses and reports based on the data collected.

Although transfer provisions are often adopted to
address a perceived problem of increasing juvenile
violence, the studies in Florida and Pennsylvania
show that it is unclear whether broader transfer
provisions actually result in increased use of transfer. The Florida data, for example, indicate that the
States 1994 reforms did not result in the transfer of
more juveniles to criminal court. The Pennsylvania
study of exclusions similarly showed that only those
juveniles who would have ended up in criminal
court anyway remained there. The Pennsylvania
exclusion study also revealed a considerable time
lag in prosecuting juveniles in criminal court. Thus,
while the sanction ultimately imposed was similar
to the sanction a youth would have received in the
juvenile system, the criminal system expended
greater resources to prosecute the case and detain
the juvenile prior to sentencing.

Even though juvenile arrest and victimization data
for the past few years indicate that juvenile crime
has been dropping, a large number of juvenile offenders remain in residential detention and corrections programs across the Nation. Responses to
OJJDPs Census of Juveniles in Residential
Placement (CJRP) identified more than 125,800
young persons assigned beds on October 29, 1997,
in 1,121 public and 2,310 private facilities nationwide. Of these individuals, nearly 105,800 (84
percent) met the inclusion criteria for the Census,
which included being under age 21, being assigned
a bed in a residential facility at the end of the day
on October 29, 1997, having been charged with or
court adjudicated for an offense, and being in residential placement as a result of that offense.

Although there are many juveniles residing in facilities on any given day, the quality and condition of
these facilities are largely unknown. How well do
these facilities operate? Is the safety of juveniles
and staff assured? Are facilities fulfilling the dual
mission of the youth detention and corrections system: to keep the public safe and provide treatment to young offenders so that they will return to the community as productive citizens? How can facilities measure their effectiveness and identify areas that
need improvement? The Research Division supports
several projects that examine these questions.

In 1995, OJJDP launched the Performance-based
Standards (PbS) project, largely in response to its
landmark Conditions of Confinement Study, which
found high rates of suicidal behavior by youth in
residential placement, few timely or professionally
conducted health screenings, and high levels of staff
turnover at detention and correctional facilities. In
addition, the study found that pervasive crowding at
facilities was related to high rates of injury to staff
and youth. OJJDP recognized the need for national
performance standards to improve the quality and
conditions of such facilities and awarded a grant to
the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators
(CJCA) to develop and implement performance
standards for youth correctional and detention
facilities. Through the consensus of more than 40
representatives from major youth corrections and
detention agencies, correctional associations, and
related organizations, an advisory board and four
working groups established outcome measures and
data elements to assess the impact of the following
PbS goals for the areas of operations:

Security: To protect public safety and provide a
safe environment for youth and staff. Security is
essential for effective learning and treatment.

Order: To establish clear expectations of behavior and an accompanying system of accountability
for youth and staff that promotes mutual respect,
self-discipline, and order.

Safety: To engage in management practices that
promote the safety and well-being of staff and
youth.

Programming: To provide meaningful opportunities for youth to improve their educational and
vocational competence, address underlying behavioral problems, and prepare for responsible
lives in the community.

Justice: To operate the facility in a manner that is
consistent with principles of fairness and that provides ways to ensure and protect the legal rights of
youth and their families.

Health/Mental Health: To identify and effectively respond to youths physical and mental
health problems and to related behavioral problems throughout the course of confinement by
using professionally appropriate diagnostic,
treatment, and prevention protocols. 5

Standards appear to be making a difference in the
quality of service. Thirty-two facilities have been
implementing PbS since August 1998. These facilities have completed four rounds of data collection
and are continuing to work on improvements before
completing their next data collection in spring 2001.
Since beginning implementation of PbS, several
facilities have reported measurable improvements,
such as reduction of youth injuries and decline in
staff turnover.

A facility that had experienced a youth suicide and received major criticism
from the media, policymakers, and the public before implementing the
standards showed dramatic improvement 1 year after implementation.
The facilitys data report showed that there had been no suicides
during the year and that all youth were screened at intake for risk
of suicide before being assigned housing. The evaluation also showed
a reduction in the use of mechanical restraints and indicated that
no youth had been injured when restraints were used. During the same
period, the facilitys use of isolation and room
confinement was cut in half and there were fewer injuries to youth
and fewer escapes from the facility. Each of these areas had been
targeted for improvement, and each had been the subject of public
criticism. A consequence of the reduction in use of mechanical restraints
and greater staff involvement in handling disruptive situations has
been an increase in staff reports of fear (a 17-percent increase in
1 year). The facility and PbS project have responded by hiring experts
to train staff on deescalation techniques. Followup for this and other
facilities is ongoing to ensure that improvements are sustained and
other key performance areas do not suffer.

Implementation of PbS is challenging, but valued. Recent survey results from an evaluation being conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration are encouraging, in terms of both adoption of
PbS and improvements in facility outcomes. Even
the nearly one-third of facilities that reported experiencing significant difficulties with initial implementation of standards felt strongly that the standards
would ultimately be accepted and used in youth
correctional and detention facilities. Researchers
found that PbS goals are widely shared by facility
administrators and staff.

Interest in and adoption of PbS are growing. In
fall 2000, the 32 facilities originally engaged in PbS
activities were joined by 25 new facilities. OJJDP
is working with CJCA to publish and distribute a
Bulletin on the PbS project, a PbS users manual,
and resource guides that describe effective programs
and provide resources to help facilities improve their
practices. Topics to be addressed in the resource
guides include suicide prevention, treatment of sex
offenders, educational programming, mental health
services, and facility communications. The PbS Web
site (www.cjca.net/sitecode/cjca_projects_pbs.html) is another
vehicle that OJJDP uses to provide the field with
information on facilities participating in the PbS
project.

Additional research on the impact of PbS is
needed. Although initial findings on the impact
of PbS are encouraging, ongoing evaluation and
research are necessary to ensure that positive
changes are sustained and facilities are able to
adapt to modifications in staffing patterns and
populations. Implementation in a wide range of
facilities offers the field a unique opportunity to
understand how targeted changes in practice and
training and the infusion of additional resources
affect important outcomes for youth in confinement.

Standards can be applied to other facility activities. Early successes encouraged the PbS team to look beyond the six areas of operations originally
identified for standards and consider what facilities
are doing to prepare youth for reintegration when
they return to the community. The PbS team has
partnered with OJJDPs Intensive Aftercare Program to develop a set of standards and outcome
measures relating to facilities efforts to transition
youth from confinement to the community.

The Research Division sponsors a broad-based program of research that focuses on many aspects of
youth gangs. Through a series of research projects
and evaluations, secondary data analysis, and activities of the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC),
OJJDP continues to learn valuable information
about the prevalence, nature, and impact of youth
gangs in communities across the country. Most important, this information is used to craft solutions
and strategies to counter the impact of gang activity
on youth and schools.

National Youth Gang Center

The National Youth Gang Center (NYGC) collects data, analyzes State legislation related to gangs, conducts reviews of literature dealing with gang issues, identifies promising gang program strategies, and provides technical support to the National Youth Gang Consortium. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) convenes the Consortiumwhich includes all Federal agencies and bureaus engaged in antigang activitiesthree times a year to build partnerships and coordinate Federal resources at the local level to develop comprehensive approaches to gang prevention, intervention, and suppression.

Since 1995, NYGC has conducted the annual OJJDP National Youth Gang Survey of law enforcement agencies. Summaries and Fact Sheets based on the survey are published regularly
through OJJDP. NYGC also provides training and technical assistance for the Rural Youth Gang
Initiative and will do the same for the Gang-Free Schools and Communities Initiative launched in
early 2001. The NYGC Web site is an excellent resource for information on gang programs, research, and legislation. Full-text publications, bibliographies of publications relating to gang research, and lists of gang legislation by State and subject can be found at www.iir.com/nygc/.

Although the prevalence of youth gangs is decreasing nationwide, it is increasing in rural
communities. In 1998, nearly half (4,463) of the
U.S. cities and counties responding to the National
Youth Gang Survey reported experiencing youth
gang activity. Such activity included an estimated
28,700 gangs and 780,200 active youth gang members in the United States, a modest decrease of
about 3 percent from 1997 and a decrease of 5 percent from 1996, when 53 percent of all responding
jurisdictions reported active youth gangs. Most of
the nationwide decrease occurred in large suburban
counties (i.e., those with populations of 250,000 or
more). Counter to the nationwide trend, however, between 1996 and 1998, the number of gang members in rural counties increased 43 percent and the
number of gang members in small cities increased
3 percent.

Even with a national decrease in youth gang activity, many communities face major challenges as
they address their gang problem. In 1998, more
than two-thirds of jurisdictions reported that their
gang problem was either staying about the same
or getting worse, compared with previous years.
In addition, only 16 percent of jurisdictions reported
that gang members in their communities did not use
firearms in conjunction with assaults. More than
half indicated that gang members used weapons
often or sometimes. Moreover, one-third of all
youth gangs today are drug gangs (i.e., gangs organized specifically for the purpose of trafficking in
drugs). These drug gangs appear most prevalent in
rural counties (38 percent). Jurisdictions report
most of their gang members are involved in one or
more of the following serious and/or violent crimes:
larceny/theft (17 percent), burglary/breaking and
entering (13 percent), aggravated assault (12 percent), motor vehicle theft (11 percent), and robbery
(3 percent).

Youth gangs are prevalent in schools, where drug
and gang activities appear linked. The most recent
data available indicate that more than one-third
(37 percent) of students report a gang presence at
school (Howell and Lynch, 2000). A high correlation exists between student victimization of all types
and school gang presence. In addition, most gangs
that students see at school are actively involved in
criminal activity. Students reported, for example,
that about two-thirds of school gangs were involved
in violence, drug activity, or gun carrying. Students
also reported that gangs were most prevalent in
schools where drugs were easy to obtain.

A comprehensive approach appears to be the most
promising way to address gang activity. OJJDPs
Comprehensive Gang Program model incorporates
five key components that continue to show the greatest promise for communities addressing the activities
of youth gangs: community mobilization, social intervention, provision of opportunities, suppression of gang activity, and organizational change and development. This comprehensive approach coordinates
services (e.g., social, academic, vocational, and law
enforcement) to prevent youth from becoming involved in gangs and to help jurisdictions intervene
with gang-involved juveniles and reduce the criminal
impact of gangs. Two current OJJDP projectsthe
Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang
Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program
(being used in five communities) and the Rural Youth
Gang Initiative (under way in four rural sites)are
implementing the strategies of the Comprehensive
Gang model.

OJJDP is expanding its comprehensive approach
to youth gangs through the new FY 2000 Gang-Free Schools and Communities Initiative. This
initiative includes two new programs being
launched by OJJDP to address and reduce youth
gang crime and violence in schools and communities
across America: OJJDPs Gang-Free Communities
Program, which will offer seed funding to up to 12
communities to replicate OJJDPs Comprehensive
Gang Model, and OJJDPs Comprehensive Gang
Model: An Enhanced School/Community Approach to
Reducing Youth Gang Crime, which will support up to
4 demonstration sites implementing school-focused
enhancements to the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang
Model. Both efforts will include technical assistance
and training through OJJDPs NYGC and provide
support for program evaluation. The initiative through
which these programs are being launched represents a
collaboration between OJJDP and the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services,
Labor, and the Treasury.

OJJDP-Funded Gang Research

Action Research on Youth Gangs in Indian Country: Profiling the Problem and Seeking Solutions,
directed by Troy Armstrong, Ph.D., Center for
Delinquency and Crime Policy Studies, California
State University, Sacramento.

Case Studies and Evaluation Planning of the OJJDP Rural Youth Gang Initiative, directed by
Barry Krisberg, Ph.D., National Council on Crime
and Delinquency, Oakland, CA.

Evaluation of the Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program, directed by Irving
Spergel, Ph.D., School of Social Services Administration, University of Chicago, IL.

An estimated 1,755,000 juvenile cases were referred to
juvenile court in 1997, but only 57 percent (996,000)
went through the formal court process. The rest
(43 percent or 759,000) were nonpetitioned. Fewer
than half of the nonpetitioned cases resulted in a dismissal. What happened to the other nonpetitioned
cases? Undoubtedly, many were diverted to alternative programs such as teen/youth courts and restorative justice programs. These options have been
available for several years, and more and more communities today are using them to handle juvenile
offenders diverted from the formal court process.

Teen courts, first established about 20 to 25 years
ago, are generally used for younger juveniles (ages
10 to 15) with no prior arrests who have been
charged with minor violations (e.g., shoplifting,
vandalism, and status offenses). These offenders are
typically offered diversion to teen court in lieu of
more formal handling by the traditional juvenile
justice system. Although teen courts often include
many of the same steps as the formal juvenile court
(e.g., intake, preliminary review of charges, court
hearing, disposition), they differ from other juvenile
justice programs in that young people, rather than
adults, are in charge. Youth in teen courts may act
as prosecutors, defense counsel, jurors, court clerks,
bailiffs, or judges (or as members of a panel of youth
judges). Adults act as administrators who provide
oversight, planning, and training. Although some
teen court programs involve deliberation on charges,
the key feature of all teen court programs is the substantial role that youth play in the imposition of sanctions on young offenders.

OJJDPs Evaluation of Teen Courts Project recently
conducted a national survey of teen and youth courts.
More than 300 programs responded to the survey
(a more than 70-percent response rate). Responses to
the survey documented the range of teen and youth
court programs used in jurisdictions across the country, the characteristics of teen and youth court clients,
the sanctions imposed, the courtroom models used, the extent of community support received, and the
challenges faced. Survey findings are described in
the next section .

In addition to diverting youth to teen and youth
courts, many communities are starting to use another alternative to formal processing: restorative
justice conferences. Based on the Australian model
of family group conferencing, a restorative justice
conference brings together an offending youth, his
or her victim, and supporters of both with a trained
facilitator to discuss the incident and the harm and
effect it has had on the victim and supporters. In a
restorative justice conference, the victim has an opportunity to explain how he or she has been harmed
and to question the offending youth. Supporters
have a chance to describe how they have been affected by the incident, and the conference ends with
a reparation agreement in which all participants
agree on how the offending youth can make amends
to the victim. The reparation agreement may include
an apology and/or some type of restitution to be
made to the victim. It may also describe other actions to be taken by the youth, such as improving
school attendance or completing homework. As part
of a balanced and restorative justice model, these
conferences seek to hold youth accountable, involve
and meet the needs of victims, and build a community of support around youth.

The field of research on restorative justice efforts
for both adults and juvenilesis growing. A recently completed OJJDP-funded evaluation of one
such program in Indianapolis, IN, found highly
positive results in terms of conference completion,
participant satisfaction, and youth reoffending.

Research findings on both of the alternative methods discussed in this sectionteen/youth courts and
restorative justice conferencescontinue to provide
OJJDP with important information about the obstacles to establishing such programs, the challenges
of sustaining volunteers and funding, and the key
elements to program success. Research findings can
be used by communities to guide program planning
and implementation.

The potential benefits of teen/youth courts and
restorative justice conferences are widely recognized. Communities are increasingly using teen/
youth courts and restorative justice programs,
largely because of the great potential benefits of
these alternative programs. Such benefits include
improved accountability in minor offense cases that
are unlikely to result in sanctions from the traditional
juvenile justice system, more timely handling of cases,
cost savings (teen/youth courts and restorative justice
programs rely heavily on volunteers), and enhanced
community-court relationships. Some evaluations
also show that participants in teen/youth courts and
restorative justice programs have higher levels of
satisfaction and feel more invested in the process
than participants in more traditional juvenile justice
programs (and even participants in other diversion
programs).

Teen/youth court and restorative justice programs
are selective about the types of cases they will
handle. Comprehensive screening of case referrals
helps ensure that only offending youth who are amenable to intervention end up in teen/youth court or
restorative justice programs. Overall, these youth
are nonviolent offenders who commit less serious
offenses, and most have not had a previous referral.
For example, more than 90 percent of teen court
programs that responded to the survey reported that
they never or rarely accept youth who have had
a previous juvenile court referral. Even fewer programs accept youth who have a prior felony arrest.
The Indianapolis Restorative Justice Project reported that it screens out juveniles with prior adjudications and juveniles older than age 14 and requires
juveniles to admit responsibility for their offense.
(Restorative justice conferences are not fact-finding hearings. If a youth challenges the allegations, the
matter proceeds to court.)

A programs screening processes may influence its
impact (e.g., if more difficult cases are screened out,
positive results may be less meaningful). Evaluations
that appropriately compare these interventions with
other diversion programs that serve youth with similar characteristics and offenses and use similar screening procedures are more likely to provide meaningful
information about the effectiveness of various diversion options.

Even though many serious cases may be screened
out, the cases that are handled by teen/youth courts
and restorative justice programs often call for a serious response. Most cases that teen court programs
reported handling involve theft, minor assault, disorderly conduct, possession or use of alcohol, and
vandalism. These cases are similar to those handled
by the Indianapolis Restorative Justice Project,
which reported handling primarily conversion
(shoplifting), battery, theft, and criminal mischief
cases.

Benefits of alternatives to formal court processing
may include greater satisfaction for victims, greater
involvement of offenders and parents, and lowered
recidivism rates. Indianapolis restorative justice program recorded high levels of satisfaction for victims.
More than 90 percent of victims (compared with 68 percent of victims in the control group) either
strongly agreed or agreed that they were satisfied with the conference. Typically, victims participating in the program reported feeling much more
involved in the process (97 percent versus 47 percent of victims in the control group). In addition,
many victims who participated in the program indicated that they would recommend the process to a
friend in a similar situation. Although levels of satisfaction for participating offenders and their parents
did not differ from those of offenders and parents in
other diversion programs, participants and their
families felt much more involved in the process. In
terms of reoffending, the results of restorative justice
conferences are promising. When compared with
the total sample and with juveniles who successfully
completed other diversion programs (the control
group), youth participating in restorative justice
conferences were significantly less likely to be
rearrested 6 months after the incident.

A principal goal of both teen/youth courts and restorative justice programs is to hold young offenders
accountable for their behavior. Every youth who
admits guilt or is found guilty in teen/youth court
receives some form of sanction. In many cases, these
sanctions do more than punish a young offender;
they encourage him or her to repair (at least in part)
the damage caused to the community or inflicted on
a specific victim. Sanctions may include an order to
pay restitution or perform community service. In
some cases, sanctions involve writing a letter of
apology to a victim. Many teen/youth courts require
offenders to serve on a subsequent teen/youth court
jury. The satisfaction level of offenders diverted to
teen/youth courts has not yet been measured. However, the greater accountability required of these
offenders might result in findings similar to those
of the restorative justice project.

Communities need clear guidelines to implement
alternative programs. As more and more communities begin to adopt alternative programs such as teen/
youth courts and restorative justice initiatives, they
need clear guidelines on how to develop the programs
and what key components to include for successful
implementation. OJJDP, through its Training and
Technical Assistance Division, provides communities
with this type of assistance. Examples include the
National Youth Court Center and OJJDP publications such as the Guide for Implementing the Balanced
and Restorative Justice Model. These resources and
OJJDPs evaluation efforts in this area inform the
technical assistance that OJJDP provides to communities. Such assistance helps communities continue to
provide juvenile offenders, their families, and victims
alternatives to formal court processing that offer support and rehabilitation and promote accountability.

More research on teen courts and restorative
justice conferences is needed.Although teen/youth
courts and restorative justice programs tend to enjoy
broad community support, little is known about
their actual effectiveness in reducing future delinquent behavior. Favorable media coverage, high short-term satisfaction levels of parents and youth,
and widespread public interest make these programs
popular options for policymakers. Yet, little research
has been conducted on what the outcomes are for
juvenile offenders participating in the programs,
whether these alternatives are more effective at reducing future delinquent behavior than the formal
juvenile court or other diversion programs, and
how the programs affect victims and the community.
Preliminary findings from recent studies indicate that
participation in teen/youth court may be associated
with lowered recidivism rates, improved youth attitudes toward authority, and increased knowledge of
the justice system among youth. In addition, although
the findings of the Indianapolis Restorative Justice
Project (which shows higher levels of satisfaction and
lower recidivism rates than other diversion programs)
are encouraging, more research is required to determine whether these positive results can be sustained
over the long term and replicated reliably in other
communities.

Community-based involvement appears to improve the likelihood of a programs longevity
and success. Community involvement in both teen/youth courts and restorative justice conferences is
extremely important. Programs, therefore, often
need to engage in efforts early on to recruit and train
volunteers, locate appropriate referrals, and maintain the support of youth-serving organizations. Also
important is the continuing involvement of other
agencies and organizations, including courts, law
enforcement, and social services agencies. Schools
and faith organizations can play an important role
by providing facility space, volunteers, and opportunities for community service.

Teen/youth court programs indicated that their three
greatest challenges are sustaining funding, retaining
youth volunteers, and continuing to receive sufficient
case referrals. Teen/youth court programs operated
by schools or private agencies were significantly more
likely to report problems with funding, judicial support, and coordination with other agencies than were
those operated by courts, law enforcement, or prosecutors. Although these findings may not be surprising, they reinforce the need for strong community-based collaboration to design, implement, and sustain
an effective teen/youth court program.

Butts, J., Hoffman, D., and Buck, J. 1999. Teen
Courts in the United States: A Profile of Current Programs.
Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(FS 99118).

McGarrell, E. In press. Restorative Justice Conferences as
an Early Response to Young Offenders. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (NCJ 187769).

OJJDPs Research Division monitors trends relating to juvenile offenders and victims, including information on self-reported offending and official
statistics on juvenile offenses, juvenile arrests, and
juvenile offenders. Working with other branches of
the U.S. Department of Justice, including the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), and other government agencies,
such as the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, and Bureau of
Labor Statistics, OJJDPs Research Division gathers information that provides a complete look at the nature and extent of juvenile delinquency and victimization in the United States. To that end, the Research Division supports the following projects:

The National Juvenile Court Data Archive (NJCDA). NJCDA collects, stores, and analyzes
data about young people referred to U.S. courts
for delinquency and status offenses. A series of
OJJDP Fact Sheets and Bulletins about these
data informs the field on a regular basis.

National Juvenile Justice Data Analysis Project (NJJDAP). NJJDAP was established
in 1998 to address an important need of the juvenile justice community: current, high-quality information on a broad spectrum of issues. Most
research projects address specific issues through
scientific research designs that include data collection and analysis. NJJDAP, on the other
hand, makes use of existing data sets. By searching out experts on data sets and contracting them
to complete analyses, NJJDAP takes full advantage of existing expertise. The project team also
has in-house expertise on important juvenile justice data sets such as the National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth (NLSY97) and the Census of
Juveniles in Residential Placement. NJJDAP
is able to develop reports, bulletins, and other
products on a wide range of topics. To date, it has
produced the CJRP Databook (a Web-based
interactive program), fact sheets on self-reported
delinquency (based on NLSY97), briefing materials on crowding in detention centers, briefing
materials on school suspension, and analyses of
the National Crime Victimization Survey.

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. Conducted for the first time in 1997, CJRP gathers detailed information on juveniles in residential
placement facilities as a result of contact with the
juvenile justice system. CJRP collects data on
characteristics of juveniles in the facilities (date of
birth, race, sex, and most serious offense), court
of jurisdiction (juvenile or criminal), adjudicatory
status (pre- or post-adjudication), and the State
or county with jurisdiction over the juvenile.
OJJDP has developed an online databook that
contains both national and State-level tables
based on the data from CJRP. (The databook
can be found in the Statistical Briefing Book via
OJJDPs Web site, www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org, under
JJ Facts & Figures.) Data from the second
CJRP (conducted in 1999) will identify trends
during the past 2 years, and the online databook
will be updated to include this information. Information from the 1999 CJRP will be released in
late 2001.

Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP). SYRP will survey the same youth
included in CJRP: those in residential custody
as a result of their contact with the juvenile justice
system. SYRP researchers will interview youth
directly about their offense history, service needs,
experience in custody, and general background
(including standard demographic items). The
survey will also examine the risk and protective
factors of the youth. OJJDP began a 2-year
development phase for this survey in 1998 by
awarding a cooperative agreement to Westat,
Inc., and the first full implementation of the
survey will occur in 2002.

Juvenile Probation Survey. OJJDP is developing the Juvenile Probation Survey to complement
various other censuses that deal with juvenile
custody. Even though juvenile probation has been
described as the workhorse of the juvenile justice
system (Torbet, 1996), few data exist on the use
of probation and no data exist on the number of juveniles on probation at any given time. The
new Juvenile Probation Survey will fill this gap.
OJJDP hopes to field test the survey in 2001.

Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC). To complement CJRP, OJJDP developed JRFC,
which will describe both the residential environments in which juveniles are held and the services
they receive while residing in the facilities. The
census will cover security arrangements, health
services, mental health treatment, substance abuse
treatment, education, and facility capacity. A large-scale feasibility test of the census was performed in
October 1998, and the census was implemented
nationally for the first time in October 2000.

Resources for OJJDP Statistical
Projects

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement,
the Juvenile Residential Facility Census, and the
Juvenile Probation Survey, directed by Joseph
Moone, M.S., Program Manager, Research and
Program Development Division, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, in collaboration with the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

National Juvenile Court Data Archive and National Juvenile Justice Data Analysis Project,
directed by Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., National
Center for Juvenile Justice, National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Pittsburgh, PA.

More and more, OJJDP has turned to high-tech solutions and the Internet to inform the public of new
research findings and their implications for the field. The OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book (www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/index.html) allows users to access online data via OJJDPs Web site to learn more about juvenile crime trends across the Nation and in specific communities. The Briefing Book also provides basic
information on juvenile crime and victimization and on youth involved in the juvenile justice system. Data
in several content areas listed on the site (e.g., juvenile populations, juvenile arrests, juveniles in court,
and juveniles in corrections) provide timely and reliable statistical answers to the most frequently asked
questions of policymakers, the media, and members of the general public.

Juvenile violent crime continues to decline. In
1999, law enforcement agencies arrested an estimated 2.5 million persons under the age of 18an
8-percent decrease from 1998 but still an increase
of 11 percent over the number arrested in 1990.
In 1999, juveniles accounted for 17 percent of all
arrests and 16 percent of all violent crime arrests.
In 1999, for the fifth consecutive year, the juvenile
violent crime arrest rate (i.e., the number of juvenile
arrests per 100,000 persons ages 10 to 18 in the
population) declined. Specifically, between 1995 and
1999, the juvenile violent crime arrest rate declined
9 percent. The juvenile murder rate fell 68 percent
in 1999 from its peak in 1993, reaching its lowest
level since the 1960s.

In 1997, courts with juvenile jurisdiction disposed
more than 1.7 million delinquency cases. The
number of delinquency cases disposed in 1997
(about the same as the number disposed in 1996)
represented a 48-percent increase from the number
disposed in 1988. Most cases (84 percent) handled
in juvenile court in 1997 had been referred by law
enforcement, although some referral variations
existed across offenses.

Younger juveniles account for a substantial proportion of juvenile arrests and the juvenile court
caseload. Thirty-two percent of juveniles arrested in
1999 were younger than age 15. The proportion of
juvenile arrests involving younger juveniles (under age
15) was highest for arson (67 percent), followed by
sex offenses (51 percent), vandalism (44 percent), and
other assaults (43 percent). Of all delinquency cases
processed by the Nations juvenile courts in 1997,
58 percent involved juveniles younger than age 16.

Female delinquency continues to grow. In 1999,
27 percent of juvenile arrests involved a female offender. Between 1990 and 1999, the number of female juvenile offenders arrested increased more or
decreased less than the number of male juvenile
offenders arrested in most offense categories. The
number of juvenile court delinquency cases involving females increased 83 percent between 1988 and
1997, while cases involving males increased 39 percent during this period. Females accounted for one
in seven juveniles in residential placement in 1997.

Twenty-five percent of the juveniles in residential
custody nationwide were charged with Violent
Crime Index offenses. Data from the 1997 Census
of Juveniles in Residential Placement, which replaced the Children in Custody series, show more
than 105,790 juveniles in public and private facilities
on October 29, 1997. One-quarter of the juveniles in
placement had been charged with or adjudicated for
a violent offense. Youth charged with delinquent
offenses made up 93 percent of juvenile offenders in
both private and public residential placement; those
charged with status offenses made up 7 percent.

Minority juveniles continue to be overrepresented
in the custody population. For every 100,000 non-Hispanic black juveniles in the U.S. population, 1,018 were in a residential placement facility on October 29, 1997. The rate was 515 for Hispanics and 204 for non-Hispanic whites.

Even with recent declines, juvenile crime remains
too high. Despite decreases in recent years, juvenile arrests in 1999 were 11 percent higher than in 1990. For violent crimes committed by juveniles, 1999 arrests were 5 percent higher than in 1990. Such increases confirm that juvenile crime and delinquency remain serious problems in the Nation.

Communities should place special focus on young
offenders and female offenders. These two groups
account for a greater proportion of the delinquency
population than ever before. Therefore, the unique
factors that contribute to these groups increased
involvement in crime and delinquency and ways to
effectively intervene with the groups should be examined and tested.

Additional research on juveniles in custody is
necessary. To understand where to focus resources,
communities need to learn more about the characteristics and needs of juveniles in custody. Unfortunately, most information about juveniles in residential facilities is provided by the facilities themselves. OJJDPs Research Division is planning the Survey of Youth in
Residential Placement, which will gather individual-level data directly from the juveniles in residential facilities. In addition, the Juvenile Residential Facility Census will gather
information on programs and services offered by residential facilities across the country.

1 The full findings of the Study Group on Serious and Violent
Juvenile Offenders appear in Loeber and Farrington's 1998
publication Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and
Successful Interventions. The Study Group Report on which this
publication is based (Loeber and Farrington, 1997) is available
from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. See the selective
bibliography for more information on both
publications.

2 1997 is the most recent year for which national juvenile court
data are available. This is due to the lengthy technical process of
creating a national database from dozens of State and local
courts. Juvenile and family courts across the Nation voluntarily
provide data to the National Juvenile Court Data Archive
(available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/njcda/), which
collects, stores, and analyzes data on juvenile justice.

3 Transitions are changes in the family structure caused by
events in the parenting figures' lives such as divorce, separation,
death, or long-term hospitalization.

4 "High-rate offending" was defined as a high frequency of
general delinquency offending. High-rate offenders were those
juveniles who fell into the highest quartile of offending
frequency.